urbanMSP

If you're short of something whether toilet paper or single family detached houses, it seems the best way is to make more of them rather than to pour resources into imperfect substitutes like paper towels or condos.

I'm just operating under the assumption that we don't have enough land available at a close enough distance to create enough single family housing to meet demand by minority communities where the minority community's demand is - for the black community of Minnesota that overwhelmingly lives in close proximity to Minneapolis, there's essentially nothing left within half an hour of Minneapolis. In my mind, that means to focus on new constructions being multifamily homes for sale in the built-up areas, and adding more first time homebuyer programs and grants and target advertising to minority communities for both these new ones and all the existing ones.

Greenfield land available to convert into smaller single family homes in Carver isn't going to help much to alleviate the demand for them in a place like SLP despite the communities only being half an hour apart simply because part of the reason the demand in general in SLP is high is because people are specifically seeking out SLP for its proximity to Minneapolis and amenities as a community. Carver has essentially no amenities of its own to write home about. It would help for those who aren't specifically targeting SLP because of proximity and are just trying to get a detached home, but people my age who I know are buying homes are very much about the amenities the community offers, and most of the people I know would not want to live in Carver unless we're using it to move closer in from further out.

https://www.startribune.com/oppidan-to- ... 600102677/ (Paywalled)

With the switch to online shopping, spec warehouse and logistical space on cheap suburban land is a hot commodity. Oppidan is building
Chaska Creek I: 168,000 square foot
Chaska Creek II: 133,000 square foot
Bunker Lake (Ramsey) I and II
Bunker Lake III: 147,000 square foot

As well as four buildings in Raleigh.

Along with the new Home Depot distribution center in Rosemount.

Why are apartment project so large? Why don't suburbs zone for 3-12 units anywhere? It's either a suplex (are they still doing those?) or a 100 units 5-story podium building. It's hard to believe not a single planning commission or council is any of the 100 suburbs wants something in the middle of these extremes.

Because a large project built on a brownfield site is easier to swallow politically than trying to convince people the sky won't fall if two families live next door instead of one.

And getting people to understand that a house can be rented is next to impossible. To the average suburbanite, house = owned and good, multifamily = rent and bad.

I’d heard from some developers that above something like 30–40 units, the costs the developer puts in to bring a development into existence are about identical to developments for 100-, 150-, 200-units.

Cities make the barriers to lot consolidation comparatively low.

Cities, especially suburbs, prevent building to the lot line except relatively rare cases, and almost never on land where building to the lot line wasn’t the pre-existing status. Then tack on all sorts of requirements to be stepped back from the lot line on all sides.

There are pretty big incentives to grab a swath of properties, consolidate into one that’s not divided up by empty air, and build one bigger building.

Residents in single family detached home neighborhoods probably aren't going to want to have to put up with living next to a 3-12 unit building any more than the want to put up with having to live next to a 100 unit building- that's probably a main reason why they bought a house in a single family neighborhood in the suburbs in the first place. So the places where you can actually build an apartment building in the suburbs tend to be big enough that you can put up 100 units, and achieve economies of scale not possible with smaller buildings.
In the city there aren't that many places that a 100 unit building would fit, so you see smaller stuff being built where the big ones don't fit.

And I'm well aware that there's houses rented out in my neighborhood. I don't care that people are renting them since the houses aren't big hulking buildings that tower over the neighborhood and bring a lot of density like a apartment building, or even an owned condo would. My friends in the neighborhood are in both owned and rented properties.

There are the very real issues of construction-side efficiencies of scale, and there are also efficiencies of scale after the fact. If you're a property manager, would you rather have to deal with a single 200 unit apartment, or ten scattered site 20 unit projects?

While on this forum we tend to obsess about things like zoning and what not, it's pretty clear that this is primarily a market driven phenomenon.

Another thing I though of- most people that are suburban apartment-livers by choice seem to want things like secure underground parking, swimming pools, party rooms, amenity decks, tennis courts, BBQ grills, and dog-wash stations. Those are more likely to be found in a building of 200 units than one of 20 units.

200 unit apartment complex for disabled adults, the Wings of Newport, closing with the expiration of the eviction moratorium. Despite it being only a year old, management claims it needs $100,000 in renovations due to the residents trashing the place and it can't be occupied during the renovations. It will reopen as mainly market rate apartments due to new state requirements that among other things, assisted living facilities need to have commercial kitchens.

https://www.startribune.com/disabled-se ... fresh=true

200 unit apartment complex for disabled adults, the Wings of Newport, closing with the expiration of the eviction moratorium. Despite it being only a year old, management claims it needs $100,000 in renovations due to the residents trashing the place and it can't be occupied during the renovations. It will reopen as mainly market rate apartments due to new state requirements that among other things, assisted living facilities need to have commercial kitchens.

https://www.startribune.com/disabled-se ... fresh=true

"The tenant's rights organization Home Line, based in Bloomington, has also taken up the residents' fight, and on Thursday organized a trip to the Newport City Council meeting to urge the council to act. Some 15 Wings residents rode to the meeting in their community bus along with Erin West, a tenant organizer for Home Line. But they struggled to be heard after council member Kevin Chapdelaine moved to cut off public comments after three members of their group spoke.

"We've had three speakers now and we've been hearing the same story," he told the Wings residents, urging them to stop coming forward. "I wish we were in a position to help but we're not. When it comes to these kinds of issues we don't have any jurisdiction at all."

West pushed back, stepping to the podium to tell Chapdelaine and the other council members that she thought they had authority to regulate rental properties, or could at least call Onken personally and ask him to give the residents more time.

"You can step in," she told them. "Please consider the stories of these people tonight.""

Really can't stand this councilman's point of view. Very classic for a small suburb to have inexperienced and uninterested councilmembers like this. "There's nothing we can do" is a really upsetting thing to hear from an elected official who could, in fact, do something.

Honest question: what exactly can the city council do?

Looks like this is an expected consequence of the new licensing requirement passed by the state.

https://www.health.state.mn.us/news/pre ... 52021.html

"Approximately 60,000 Minnesotans live in 1,800 assisted living-type facilities that mostly serve seniors. Most of those who live in an assisted living-type facility, dementia care or housing with home care will not experience significant changes in their services due to the new licensing program. However, some residents may see changes by this August, and in some cases those changes may make it necessary for residents to find a new service provider or even a new place to live.....

Minnesotans who live in an assisted living-type facility should look for a notification from their provider in the coming weeks, or they should contact their provider to learn whether their provider intends to get the assisted living license needed to keep operating after Aug. 1. Current assisted living-type providers must apply by June 1 to be eligible for Minnesota’s new assisted living license."

Sounds like what the state did a few years ago that changed regulations for daycares and virtually eliminated in-home daycare in the state contributing to the current crisis in that area.

Amber Fields, Rosemount. The U just sold the land to the developer.
https://finance-commerce.com/2022/01/u- ... ount-site/

Of the non-parkland/wetland, breaks down as:
60% Single-Family
20% Townhomes
6% School
5% Senior Housing
5% Apartments
4% Commercial

Looks to be pretty standard/boring suburban development. Only seems noteworthy since the U is involved.

Wasn't the U's original plan for that site to be a self-sustaining community? I wouldn't say the plan has to be that bold now, but at least breakaway from the usual suburban development and have the majority of it be mixed-use and medium-density.

Interesting to see the ideas that come and go for this area of Rosemount... A munitions plant that closes as soon as it opens. Talk in the 90s of a cargo-only airport. Then talk about a radical self-sustaining community (like Jonathan or MXC). And now a boring subdivison.

Interesting to see the ideas that come and go for this area of Rosemount... A munitions plant that closes as soon as it opens. Talk in the 90s of a cargo-only airport. Then talk about a radical self-sustaining community (like Jonathan or MXC). And now a boring subdivison.

With enough buried asbestos for everyone!

Transite pipe, anyone?

I just learned that the Twin Cities gained a new suburb last year as Credit River Township incorporated as a municipality. Credit River is located in Scott County, directly south of Savage and west of Lakeville. This is the first new municipality in the state since 2015, and in the metro since 2008 (Burns Township>Nowthen in Anoka County).

https://www.swnewsmedia.com/prior_lake_ ... 5b305.html